Posted by Allanfan20:

The only person that has even close to a valid point is fish, about this trade going against the philosophy Zeke said he was trying to follow...But even that I can come up with an argument for...So please tell me where we were going with this lost flexibility!

And I am sure you are right there with him, making all the sense, right? No.

The point is, we don't have any flexibility to make GOOD TRADES. Suddenly, instead of talking about drafting a superstar, we keep talking about trading for everyones outcasts. Does anyone realize how crappy Curry has been playing? There's a reason why he will be an OUTCAST. Why do we have to be going after the outcasts with all the LOST FLEXIBILITY? We should be drafting our own talent and making cheap trades and free agent signings. The Mo T trade made absolutely no sense, b/c not only did we lose flexibility, but we added a player we didn't need. A player that Isiah didn't even sound too confident in. What was the point of the trade? You seriously would have considered doing this trade as opposed to letting Moochie burn, or finding maybe a better trade? You're really satisfied with Taylor?

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by djsunyc:

redundant.

he does the same thing as our 2nd year player we're trying to develop and at 5X the cost.

we lost flexibility THIS summer for a player that will hinder sweetney's development.

if there was a $9 mil defensive SF out there, or a $9 mil backup PG, or a $9 mil jumpshooter, we should've made that deal instead b/c it give us something we don't have. but a $9 mil PF that's similar to what we already have AND still doesn't play defense is redundant.

Redundant is when everyone says that we lost all this flexibility and don't even give an inking of how it should've/could've been used....

once again, I'll drop a post that I already posted but everyone seemed to ignore...

I don't get it...the player that makes the MOST in the NBA right now is SHaq......Is he going somewhere?
Next is Dikembe...we already got rid of him once...
Allan is number 3...we don't have to trade for him....
Webber may be available at 4, but do you really want him now? Is that the type of player you want to exchange the contracts for?
KG is number 5 and he may be the only realistic option based on the far out fantasy world we are living in now.
Kidd makes the sixth most......enough said, he isn't coming here if Marbury is here...
Our Own Penny Hardaway is #7
Are Walker and Rahim the type of players you trade these contracts for? Wait, they are BOTH FA's so they can be signed and traded here for $20 million and 17 mil in cap filler...
Next is Steph, he is already here....should we trade with ourselves for him?
How about Big Z, an injury prone center who is slow and also a FA...I am sure Cleveland will sign him for 20 mil just to send him to us for contracts....maybe they can package Z and Gooden and McInnis and get back our trash and start over...
Ray Allen makes 14.625 mil (just like the last 7 guys starting at Penny)..he is on the wrong side of 30 and wants a BIG raise.
Is Philly moving Iverson for garbage and starting over?
Maybe Mike Finley.....he is exactly what we need, a 2 gurd/SF, aging with 3 years left on his tract....
Hill, KVH, Rose and Spree and TMAC all make the same $14.5 roughly...Besides McGrady, should we get rid of the "prized possessions for these guys? I am sure their teams have an extra 20 mil in dead weight like we do.
I guess we can always hope SA wants to trade Duncan and another 5 or 6 guys to us so they can have some cap space to TOTALLY start over...
Maybe the Lakers after this season are ready to trade Kobe....? Maybe?
Eddie Jones and Brina Grant can come here to play....that would be nice...but they are already close to expiring...so we are just trading names now...
We already have TT, so he is out....
Jamison and Carter and the rest of these guys make less that 13 mil...so now we are talking about 25 mil in cap filler...
Maybe Nowitzki, Finley and Stack for TT and Penny would work...I mean Dallas is always almost there but never quite there anyway...I'm sure they'd see that as equal value in rebuilding.
The TOP 30 contracts are rounded out by Paul Pierce, Damon Stoudemire and Baron Davis. Pierce and Davis are on teams with lower pay rolls already, and Damon is a FA...feel like paying him 20 mi?

Seriously....some times too much is too much and it gets ridiculous.we are talking about trading the 11 and 12 guys on our bench for the 10th guy off our bench now.


Someone please tell me where we were going with all this flexibility!!!

The only person that has even close to a valid point is fish, about this trade going against the philosophy Zeke said he was trying to follow...But even that I can come up with an argument for...So please tell me where we were going with this lost flexibility!

ok, fine, we get it. you wouldn't do the trade but you think it's insignificant in the grand scheme of things. you're looking at it in terms of bball talent. i'm looking at it like the bball talent upgrade means NOTHING to this team b/c this team ain't doing jack. so when you cancel that out, we gave up a #2 in the process. so throw out all the flexibility discussion you don't agree with, throw out the extra $9 mil, and you're left with giving up a #2 pick for taylor. not a move this team should be making, that's why i think it is significant, and why we all make a big deal about it.

Masterplan, if we wanted someone for the MLE all we have to do is sign them, not work out a sign and trade for an MLE player that is signed at the begining of the season. Very rarely would a team sign someone for the MLE in a sign and trade, especially a team that is signing him as a new FA...

i'm not saying S&T for someone and give them the MLE. my point is, other teams over the cap sign their role players for the MLE or less. once they're signed, play a season or two there, we cannot get them without taking extra contracts back. we can't do straight up trades for those players without giving up sweetney or ariza or our draft picks, not something we want to do. whereas, we could trade moochie or vin straight up for, say, trenton hassell or that type of player- effective but not worth giving up potential to get.

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by Masterplan:

Masterplan, if we wanted someone for the MLE all we have to do is sign them, not work out a sign and trade for an MLE player that is signed at the begining of the season. Very rarely would a team sign someone for the MLE in a sign and trade, especially a team that is signing him as a new FA...

i'm not saying S&T for someone and give them the MLE. my point is, other teams over the cap sign their role players for the MLE or less. once they're signed, play a season or two there, we cannot get them without taking extra contracts back. we can't do straight up trades for those players without giving up sweetney or ariza or our draft picks, not something we want to do. whereas, we could trade moochie or vin straight up for, say, trenton hassell or that type of player- effective but not worth giving up potential to get.

I understand that, but I would rather that we be giving up the player with more money so we get 2 players back, one of which can be an expiring contract. Your example of Trenton Hassel for Vin or Moochie, IMO would cost us to give up Ariza, Sweets, or a Pick because those two players are so undertalented. I know that their contracts are expiring, but if a team wants to get under the cap, what is a 5 mil? A team that is under the cap and wants to sign someone I can understand, but those types of deals don't go down until right before the draft or the trade deadline. Would it have been wiser to keep Vin and Mooch, possibly, but the way I see it, is the ability to acquire a player such as Trenton Hassell-type (just using your example)really worth the fuss that everyoe is saying how Mo is a cancer and he really impacted the future of this team for the negative? I personally don't think so, and that is the only point I am trying to make.

seriously!

Posted by Masterplan:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by Masterplan:

Masterplan, if we wanted someone for the MLE all we have to do is sign them, not work out a sign and trade for an MLE player that is signed at the begining of the season. Very rarely would a team sign someone for the MLE in a sign and trade, especially a team that is signing him as a new FA...

i'm not saying S&T for someone and give them the MLE. my point is, other teams over the cap sign their role players for the MLE or less. once they're signed, play a season or two there, we cannot get them without taking extra contracts back. we can't do straight up trades for those players without giving up sweetney or ariza or our draft picks, not something we want to do. whereas, we could trade moochie or vin straight up for, say, trenton hassell or that type of player- effective but not worth giving up potential to get.

I understand that, but I would rather that we be giving up the player with more money so we get 2 players back, one of which can be an expiring contract. Your example of Trenton Hassel for Vin or Moochie, IMO would cost us to give up Ariza, Sweets, or a Pick because those two players are so undertalented. I know that their contracts are expiring, but if a team wants to get under the cap, what is a 5 mil? A team that is under the cap and wants to sign someone I can understand, but those types of deals don't go down until right before the draft or the trade deadline. Would it have been wiser to keep Vin and Mooch, possibly, but the way I see it, is the ability to acquire a player such as Trenton Hassell-type (just using your example)really worth the fuss that everyoe is saying how Mo is a cancer and he really impacted the future of this team for the negative? I personally don't think so, and that is the only point I am trying to make.

i don't think trades usually go "expiring contract" for "talent player and expiring contract," the model is usually "expiring deal and pick(s)" for "talent player and crummy contract." if you can come up with a trade that proves me wrong here, then great, but i don't think there is one. as i've provided the trenton hassell example, its up to you to come up with the next hypothetical case.

the point is, the mo T trade moved us closer to only being able to trade for big money players. we have almost no options to trade for anyone making less than the MLE, which, by definition, is half the league. to do so, we would have to take back another big contract to make the trade work. already 9 of our roster spots are full of that type of contract; making that type of move would maintain or multiply our excessive spending and clog roster and rotation spots that will get in the way of a youth movement.

IMO it is "worth the fuss" to be able to get a trenton hassell type player. we need to be able to bring in defensive players, pure shooters, shotblockers, and if the only contracts we're willing to move are in the $6-12 mil range, well that doesn't leave us much. we're writing off everyone on a rookie, LLE, or minimum contract unless we want to take back more bad contracts. everyone wants us to trade for a star; the ones changing teams are the ones with huge question marks, i.e. webber, baron davis, antoine walker. our options are being cut down by trading for bigger, longer contracts. at the very least, it's wearing my patience a bit, prolonging everything.

seriously!

thanks for contributing, guns!

There is no model for trades, though, IMO. If a team wants a player you make something fit that is the only model I can think of (but if you want an example, How about something like Taylor for Newble, Diop and Wagner. Taylor is a FA after next year and gives the Cavs a nice duo of Gooden and Taylor for LBJ to play with. They don't get rid of any of their main players, Wagner and Diop are just taking up space on their roster. Newble has 3 years remaining on his tract at like 3 mil I think. It works cap wise...Only problem is Wagner is a FA at the end of the this year, but if we could pull a trade like this now, it would work.) . The MLE by definition is the average salary of everyone in the NBA....that doesn't mean 1/2 the league has that salary, it is just an average. I can understand the importance of having a variety of contracts on the roster, and ideally you want 1 or 2 expiring contracts every year so you have the flexibility to do whatever, thing is, for us that time of having expiring contracts doesn't start until next year, then all of a sudden we are losing these big money, lower tier players every year. IMO this is a timing thing.

I don't understand your last part. There are plenty of Hassell type players out there, each on a team with a unique financial structure. There are ways anything work. Trading for players making the LLE or whatever, and if that is the only way you plan on rebuilding our assets and getting our cost under control, I think it is narrow thinking. Signings and such should be taken into account...How many midlevel players would you like on this roster?

I don't think trading for a star is the answer. I would love for this team to see what the Pistons did as a team with 3 or 4 above average players, and players who know their role.

Idiots who liked the Mo Taylor trade manup!